Thank you. I'm sorry, but we're just very short on time.
Right now, as I understand the rules, the issue is not that the company contribution to the pension is not being fulfilled; it's that the pension benefit, the defined benefit, is not being upheld. Under the law right now, unpaid wages, severances and pension contributions are at the front of the bus, but what is not is the guarantee that the pension will deliver the defined benefit it promised.
That's really what we're debating: It's whether a pension should be made actuarially sound to deliver the benefit to the worker that is promised. For that to move forward in the priority, then other things will have to move down by definition, or else we wouldn't be here. I'd be curious about some of the other very sympathetic people who are not bankers and who are obviously going to lose in the case of a bankruptcy as well.
I'll move on to my next question now, and someone can feel free to jump onto the previous one if they like.
If a company, let us say, wants to hire 200 people but needs to open a factory to do it, they go to get a loan because they don't have the money. If this bill we're debating is in place and the lender says, “Sure, we'll give you the loan, but we need collateral,” and the company says, “Well, we can't offer you any collateral because all the collateral is first and foremost committed under this law,” then the factory doesn't open.
How would you ensure that this bill will allow businesses to continue to offer collateral that would not be superseded by law?
Mr. Powell, would you comment?